Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 20:05:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199704010105.UAA06403@mail3.access.digex.net> Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker Sender: Lojban list From: Lee Daniel Crocker Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/) Subject: Re: proposing a lujvo X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Logical Language Group In-Reply-To: <199704010010.QAA07992@mail.calweb.com> from Steven Belknap at "Mar 31, 97 06:11:39 pm" X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1261 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Mar 31 20:05:16 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > >Really? We don't have to reach an explicit > >agreement on the place structure of the lujvo? > > My undestanding is that lujvo are metaphors. As such, there is no explicit > designation as to what they mean. Presumably, some lujvo will come to be > accepted as specific mappings in lojban semantic space, and will become > "words" whose metaphorical ambiguity will be lessened by conventional usage. That's not the way I read the literature about Lojban at all, nor do I think that's a useful interpretation. It seems to me that ordinary tanru are flexible metaphors, open to interpretation and ad hoc coinage, but that lujvo are only created when a certain specific meaning is used commonly enough to merit forming a single word for it, and thereby making it listable and its meaning no longer ambiguous. Hmm. Now I have Lojbanize my name to sign off. zo lis. doesn't sound right. zo les. would work, or zo daniel. Guess I'll settle for co'omi'e les. -- Lee Daniel Crocker "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC